Transcription

2 Transformative social protection Stephen Devereux and Rachel Sabates-Wheeler IDS Working Paper 232 First published by the Institute of Development Studies in October 2004 Institute of Development Studies 2004 ISBN A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. Reproduction, copy, transmission, or translation of any part of this publication may be made only under the following conditions: with the prior permission of the publisher; or with a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd., 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE, UK, or from another national licensing agency; or under the terms set out below. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for teaching or non-profit purposes, but not for resale. Formal permission is required for all such uses, but normally will be granted immediately. For copying in any other circumstances, or for re-use in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher, and a fee may be payable. Available from: Communications Unit Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex Brighton BN1 9RE, UK. Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Printed by XPS Limited, Brighton UK IDS is a charitable company limited by guarantee and registered in England (No ). ii

3 Summary Social protection describes all public and private initiatives that provide income or consumption transfers to the poor, protect the vulnerable against livelihood risks, and enhance the social status and rights of the marginalised; with the overall objective of reducing the economic and social vulnerability of poor, vulnerable and marginalised groups. This paper argues against the popular perception of social protection as social welfare programmes for poor countries, consisting of costly targeted transfers to economically inactive or vulnerable groups. It also challenges the limited ambition of social protection policy in practice, which has moved little from its origins in the social safety nets discourse of the 1980s, and aims to provide economic protection against livelihood shocks, rather than social protection as broadly defined here. Instead, we argue that social protection can be affordable; it should extend to all of the population; it can contribute to the Millennium Development Goal of poverty reduction; and it can empower marginalised people and be socially transformative. iii

7 1 Introduction Social protection emerged as a critical response to the safety nets discourse of the late 1980s and early 1990s. In the 1990 World Development Report, for instance, safety nets were very much the third prong of the World Bank s three-pronged approach to attacking poverty (World Bank 1990), and were conceptualised as minimalist social assistance in countries too poor and administratively weak to introduce comprehensive social welfare programmes. During the 1990s, as thinking on livelihoods, risk and vulnerability, and the multi-dimensional nature of poverty became more nuanced, safety nets were increasingly criticised as residualist and paternalistic, and more sophisticated alternatives began to be proposed. At the same time, the broader potential of social protection began to be recognised, and bigger claims are now being made for what social protection can and should strive to achieve. There are two interconnected strands in this response, both linked to a concern for long-term and sustainable poverty reduction. The first links risk management explicitly with economic growth, and argues that reducing risk or protecting the poor against income and consumption variability will allow them to invest and accumulate a trampoline out of poverty (World Bank 2000). Despite being vigorously promoted in international development publications, this link has not yet become a key component of anti-poverty programming in practice. In low-income countries, social protection continues to be perceived by governments and donors as comprising fiscally unsustainable consumption transfers to the economically inactive or unproductive poor, which diverts scarce public resources from productive investment for economic growth, and therefore deserves lower priority as a poverty reduction tool. At the same time, most advocates of social protection do not make the second connection which we argue is of fundamental importance to long-term poverty reduction, namely the positive relationship between livelihood security and enhanced autonomy or empowerment. Social protection continues to be conceptualised by development agencies mainly in terms of public responses to livelihood shocks the conventional, narrowly specified safety net function. But this is economic protection, not social protection, and it is hardly socially transformative. Largely missing from the World Bank s Social Risk Management framework, for instance, is a concern for equity and social rights. We argue that an appreciation of this second linkage can help create the policy conditions for a virtuous cycle of pro-poor growth, governance systems that are accountable and responsive to poorer as well as wealthier citizens, and an approach to development that is grounded in concerns for social equity. In an attempt to challenge the negative perceptions and narrow preconceptions that still surround social protection, this paper addresses three topical challenges in the policy literature: Affordability: Given binding budget constraints, how can low-income countries deliver effective social protection to their vulnerable citizens at affordable cost? Growth: Can social protection policies contribute to the Millennium Development Goal of halving extreme poverty and hunger, by supporting pro-poor economic growth? 1

8 Equity: How can existing definitions and frameworks for social protection be extended to incorporate the social as well as economic aspects of risk and vulnerability? Recent thinking and research is starting to provide some encouraging answers to these questions, and is demonstrating their positive interconnections. For instance: Many forms of social protection are affordable even in the poorest countries, especially those that are not based on large or repeated income transfers to beneficiaries, but instead provide protection to the poor and vulnerable through, say, legislative change. Evidence is accumulating that social protection can contribute, both directly and indirectly, to economic growth and poverty reduction: Directly: redistributive transfers raise the incomes and smooth the consumption of the poor, which also allows them to engage in moderate risk-taking, and to protect rather than erode their asset holdings when confronted by livelihood shocks; Indirectly: several social protection mechanisms contribute to economic growth through asset creation (e.g. public works programmes build infrastructure, school feeding schemes invest in human capital), and income or employment multipliers. Rights-based approaches to development focus explicitly on social equity concerns, and propose interventions that modify prejudicial attitudes and behaviours towards socially vulnerable groups such as challenging customary law on inheritance rights to protect widows; introducing minimum wages for low-paid workers; and sensitisation campaigns to protect people living with HIV/AIDS against discrimination. This paper is structured into two main sections. The next section is conceptual: it reviews current social protection definitions and analytical frameworks, identifies several limitations of these, and presents our own conceptualisation, which highlights the transformative potential of social protection. The following section considers social protection policies in practice, by discussing several measures that can be labelled as protective, preventive, promotive, and transformative social protection. The paper concludes by reasserting the case for social protection as supporting social as well as economic goals of development. 2 Conceptualising social protection This section of the paper presents some currently influential definitions of social protection, critically assesses the World Bank s Social Risk Management framework, and proposes a new definition and analytical framework that incorporates a transformative element which recognises the need for social equity as well as protection against livelihood risks. 2

9 2.1 Current definitions of social protection Although social protection has recently become mainstreamed in development discourse, it remains a term that is unfamiliar to many and carries a range of definitions, both in the development studies literature and among policymakers responsible for implementing social protection programmes. One inevitable result of this proliferation of concepts and understandings is confusion: the core components and boundaries of social protection are far from agreed, and different stakeholders perceive social protection in very different ways. For example: (i) Some see social protection narrowly, essentially as a new label for old-style social welfare provided to the deserving poor (e.g. widows and orphans, or people with disabilities). (ii) Many policymakers continue to equate social protection with social safety nets, or interventions that cushion the poor against production and consumption shocks, such as food aid for drought-affected farmers in subsistence-oriented communities. (iii) Others adopt a very broad approach, including education and health subsidies, job creation and microcredit programmes, as well as safety nets for groups that may be vulnerable to shocks, but are not usually regarded as among the poorest strata of society (e.g. coffee farmers facing falling export prices). (iv) A more political or transformative view extends social protection to arenas such as equity, empowerment and economic, social and cultural rights, rather than confining the scope of social protection to targeted income and consumption transfers. Some current definitions of social protection from the policy literature are listed in Box 2.1. Box 2.1 Agency definitions of social protection Social protection refers to the public actions taken in response to levels of vulnerability, risk and deprivation which are deemed socially unacceptable within a given polity or society. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Social protection is a collection of measures to improve or protect human capital, ranging from labor market interventions, publicly mandated unemployment or old-age insurance to targeted income support. Social protection interventions assist individuals, households, and communities to better manage the income risks that leave people vulnerable. World Bank Social protection is the provision of benefits to households and individuals through public or collective arrangements to protect against low or declining living standards. International Labour Office (ILO) Social protection is defined as the set of policies and programs designed to reduce poverty and vulnerability by promoting efficient labor markets, diminishing people s exposure to risks, and enhancing their capacity to protect themselves against hazards and interruption/loss of income. Asian Development Bank (ADB) Sources: Norton, Conway and Foster (2000) (ODI); World Bank (2004) (World Bank); van Ginneken (1999) (ILO); Ortiz (2001) (ADB). 3

10 All the definitions in Box 2.1 share three common elements that we would question: 1) Problem identification: According to all these agencies, social protection is required to address a narrowly specified set of economic problems or livelihood shocks in response to [unacceptable] levels of vulnerability, risk and deprivation, managing income risks, protect against low or declining living standards, protect individuals from the risks inherent in earning a living. This view excludes many elements that we believe should be included in the list of concerns addressed by social protection, particularly social risks such as child labour, domestic violence, armed conflict and ethnic discrimination. 2) Problem prioritisation: Each definition prioritises a slightly different set of problems either low levels of income or living standards; or downward fluctuations in incomes and declining living standards. In our view, social protection should address both types of livelihood threat: vulnerability associated with being poor (for which social assistance is needed), and vulnerability associated with the risk of becoming poor (for which social insurance is needed), as well as social injustice arising from structural inequalities and abuses of power (for which social equity is needed). 3) Social protection providers: Each definition refers to public actions, public or collective arrangements, or a set of policies and programs clearly, it is assumed that social protection is delivered mainly through public (government) agencies; only the ILO mentions other forms of collective provision, which presumably would include community-based and private sector institutions. This paper favours a broader classification of social protection providers, including formal ( public and private ) as well as informal ( collective or community-level ) sources. An additional layer of confusion comes from the fact that different agencies subscribe to different frameworks when elucidating and implementing their social protection policies. For example, the ILO has developed a framework, derived largely from the work of Guhan (1994), which asserts that social protection in poor countries must be viewed as part of, and fully integrated with anti-poverty policies, with such policies themselves being broadly conceived in view of the complex, multi-dimensional nature of poverty and deprivation (Guhan 1994: 38). Within the ILO framework, social protection is differentiated between: protective measures which have the specific objective of guaranteeing relief from deprivation; preventive measures which directly seek to avert deprivation in various ways; and promotional measures which aim to enhance real incomes and capabilities. The categories are intended to suggest a gradation of interventions, proceeding from a narrow domain (protection measures in the form of, say, safety nets) to increasingly broader domains (preventive and even promotional measures). One strength of the ILO framework is its broad conceptualisation of poverty and vulnerability, which allows the notion of deprivation to be defined along multiple lines, over and above income and consumption poverty. A possible critique is that including the promotional element 4

11 allows social protection to be conceptualised so broadly as to include almost all elements of the development agenda. According to Sabates-Wheeler and Waite (2003: 6), the ILO agenda can become operationally manageable by defining specific sections of the society that qualify for social protection, or by focusing on one or two elements within the framework. A further benefit to retaining the promotive element is that it encourages and affords donors, NGOs, governments and informal systems (such as the extended family or burial societies) an exit strategy in the longer-run. 2.2 The Social Risk Management framework The World Bank s Social Risk Management framework (SRM) has emerged in recent years as the dominant framework for conceptualising social protection. Social risk management consists of a collection of public measures intended to assist individuals, households and communities in managing risks in order to reduce vulnerability, improve consumption smoothing, and enhance equity while contributing to economic development in a participatory manner (Holzmann and Jørgensen 1999). The SRM framework is an analytical tool to identify alternative strategies and arrangements for dealing with risks, and it has four basic elements (sometimes a fifth element risk analysis is also included): 1) The type of income risk incurred: This element traces the impacts of shocks and risks on various livelihood assets (financial, human capital, land, social assets). The World Development Report s (2000/2001) table on Main sources of risk (World Bank 2000: 136) provides the basis for this framework. 2) The type of strategies to address income shocks: Risk reduction: ex ante actions to increase the level of expected income or reduce variations; Risk mitigation: ex ante actions to reduce the income variance if a shock were to occur (portfolio diversification), e.g. holding multiple assets with different risk characteristics or insurance i.e. pooled coverage through payment of insurance premium or hedging (risk exchange); Risk coping: ex post actions to alleviate the impact of a shock (e.g. borrowing or dis-saving, charity, means-tested transfers, public works programmes). 3) The type of instruments by formality of arrangements: These range from informal or personal arrangements, such as marriage, real assets such as cattle or gold, community support; to marketbased arrangements, such as financial assets and insurance markets; to formal or publicly mandated or provided arrangements, such as rules, laws, social insurance, and welfare transfers. 4) The type of institutions and actors involved: The SRM framework recognises that a diverse range of actors can be involved in social protection provision, including state institutions, market-based institutions, international donor agencies, NGOs and charities, households and individuals. The SRM framework s rise to prominence has occurred over the last five years and has been greatly facilitated by a five-day training workshop on social protection, run by the World Bank Institute, that government officials from developing countries are encouraged to attend. The SRM training programme 5

12 is designed for high and mid-level government officials from the ministries of finance, economics and planning, labor and social affairs, parliamentarians, project staff, policy analysts and field staff from NGOs, and, because of the multi-sectoral quality of the Social Risk Management approach, researchers and trainers from academic institutions. 1 The training programme has been rolled out in more than 20 African countries, and includes seminars, workshops in Washington D.C. or Paris, video-conferences, and regional workshops. The terminology of this framework has become so well entrenched in the language of officials in a number of African countries that attempts to use different terminologies or concepts to discuss social protection is problematic. However, we argue that there are a number of reasons why this framework and its terminology should not be accepted as the truth about social protection. Specifically, the Social Risk Management framework: reflects a limited conceptualisation of vulnerability; does not explicitly address the chronic (core) poor; concerns itself predominantly with public (state, donor or NGO) and market-based social protection strategies; encourages a limited role for government in social protection provision. Limited conceptualisation of vulnerability Vulnerability can be conceptualised in a variety of ways, depending critically on the unit of analysis. Within the SRM framework (as in most literature on social protection) vulnerability is attributed to the characteristic of a person or group, an event affecting a person or group, or a point in a person s life-cycle. For instance, people living with disabilities can be characterised as more or less vulnerable than people living without disabilities in any given context. This type of analysis tends to classify vulnerability according to a range of risks or shocks that affect one or more of a variety of livelihood assets (World Bank 2000: ). This is reflected in the range of policy instruments proposed, such as reception centres for orphans, shelters for domestically abused women, disability aids for farmers living with disabilities, foodgrain warehouses, and various social assistance programmes (World Bank 2000: 141). However, if rather than focusing on risk as an exogenously given factor to be managed, vulnerability is conceptualised as emerging from and embedded in the socio-political context, then our attention would no longer be focused on how to design a policy so that various groups face less risk in a given context, but on how to change this context to minimise risk for a range of vulnerable groups. 2 The SRM framework mainly addresses economic risks to incomes and assets (World Bank 2000: 138). Absent from the framework are social risks that also contribute to poverty and vulnerability. This is evidenced by the way in which social inclusion, social cohesion and social stability are treated as positive externalities of well-designed SRM interventions. Social risks may be categorised as structural or 1 (accessed 9 August 2004). 2 For a more detailed discussion, see Sabates-Wheeler and Waite (2003). 6

13 contingent. The former refers to situations where groups or individuals are marginalised or discriminated against, and by nature have longer term implications for poverty and vulnerability than the latter. Contingent risk is a function of environmental or economic factors, such as an earthquake, or hyper-inflation. Because the SRM framework is largely focused on income variability, with other (especially social) dimensions of vulnerability being effectively overlooked, we argue that the SRM approach does not incorporate a comprehensive understanding of vulnerability, and is therefore limited in its scope and purpose of social protection provisions. Does not explicitly address the chronic (core) poor The chronic poor include those who have never recovered from a severe shock, such as a disabling illness or loss of assets. In their analysis of chronic poverty and social protection, Barrientos and Shepherd (2003: 7) state that: Although risk and vulnerability are key factors in explaining the descent into poverty, it is not clear... how important they are in maintaining people in poverty, transmitting poverty from one generation to the next, and in preventing the interruption of poverty. Importantly, their paper highlights structural reasons related to social, political and economic structures and relationships, and processes of exclusion and adverse incorporation (Barrientos and Shepherd 2003: 3) that prevent some of the chronically poor benefiting from development policies and market changes. The chronic poor have fewer options, less freedom to take up available options, and so remain stuck in patterns of life which give them low returns to whatever few assets they have maintained (Hulme, Moore and Shepherd 2001: 8). This observation is similar to the point made above, however here we do not see a clear distinction between risk and vulnerability, and structural factors as determinants of poverty. We would argue that structural factors cannot be disentangled from determinants of risk and vulnerability. Social, political and economic structures are typically the defining characteristics of livelihood risk, with the possible exception of some natural disasters though even in these cases, the contributions of socio-political factors and human agency have been persistently under-appreciated (Bankoff et al. 2004). The SRM framework remains rooted in a safety nets agenda (see discussion on pages of the World Development Report 2000/2001). That is, it proposes to put instruments in place to catch and protect people when they face short-run shocks and livelihood risks. 3 However, a commitment to longterm, chronic poverty reduction requires that social protection is conceptualised as more than just safety nets interventions must provide support for the chronic poor as well as the transitory poor, and they must extend beyond just protecting consumption against transitory economic shocks. Focuses on public and market-based social protection strategies Discussions of social protection in Western countries typically limit their thinking to a narrow technical conceptualisation of specific state-funded and state-managed programmes. However, in poor countries, 3 This is particularly apparent if we consider Mechanisms for Managing Risks the last row of the matrix in the World Development Report 2000/2001 (World Bank 2000: 141). 7

14 due to a variety of constraints that restrict the range of social protection services offered by the welfare state, the concept of social protection must be widened to include both private and public mechanisms for social protection provisioning. Among others, these constraints include: limited scope for private insurance against risk, given the underdeveloped nature of credit and insurance markets; limited scope for social insurance, given high levels of self-employment, of unstable and irregular wage employment and widespread underemployment (rather than unemployment); limited resources for formal social protection measures, given low tax-generated revenue and competing demands on the national budget; limitations in reaching rural (and even urban informal sector) populations who are spatially scattered, occupationally diverse and administratively difficult to service. For these reasons, social protection in poor countries needs to be conceived of more broadly and creatively than in industrialised countries. We argue that an important role exists for non-formal systems of social protection, for instance, those based on kinship and traditional institutions of reciprocity and dependency. Envisages a limited role for government in social protection provisions As pointed out by MacKinnon (2002): within the SRM framework the role of public social protection institutions are envisaged as playing a somewhat prescriptive and limited role as a means only to compensate for market failure. Holzmann and Jørgensen (2000: 28) explicitly state that social protection will: provide risk management instruments where the private sector fails ; enact income redistribution if market outcomes are unacceptable, and that government should mainly provide social safety nets for risk coping. The World Bank s limited expectations regarding the appropriate role for government in social protection provision is presented most clearly in the latter quote, which reflects the World Bank s true intentions in terms of limiting the wider risk-mitigating role of public social protection systems. In contrast, we argue that the government should play a central role in providing and facilitating the provision of social protection. Especially in situations of widespread poverty, where insurance mechanisms of the poor are ineffective, and there is likely to be under-provision by private providers, the case for public intervention by the state is strong. 2.3 Introducing the transformative element If the need for social protection is defined in the narrow safety net sense, as mechanisms for smoothing consumption in response to declining or fluctuating incomes, then the focus of interventions will logically be on targeted income or consumption transfers to affected individuals. In our view, the range of interventions that can contribute to the provision of social protection is much broader than resource transfers, though these are obviously important in cases where vulnerable groups are literally unable to 8

15 survive on their own resources. Targeted income transfers provide economic protection in response to economic risks and livelihood vulnerability. Other forms of social protection would address distinct problems of social vulnerability, not necessarily through resource transfers, but through delivery of social services, and through measures to modify or regulate behaviour towards socially vulnerable groups. Strategies to deal with problems of social vulnerability require a transformative element, where transformative refers to the need to pursue policies that relate to power imbalances in society that encourage, create and sustain vulnerabilities. For instance, support to trade unions may enable socially marginalised groups to claim rights to livelihood enhancing assets; sensitisation and awareness-raising campaigns can transform public attitudes and behaviour; and changes to the regulatory framework could protect vulnerable or minority groups against discrimination and abuse. Another sphere where transformative social protection policies may be needed is the intra-household division of resource ownership, access and use. For instance, many of the difficulties involved in the provision of social protection for women relates to socio-cultural values that leave women in vulnerable positions. Clearly, social protection instruments designed for many categories of women must include a substantial transformative element, in the sense that power relations between men and women become more balanced. Appropriate legislation is necessary, but this goes only a small way to changing sociocultural values. Efforts could focus on educating men and women about their rights and how to access their rights. Other more political and institutional constraints relate to: lack of access to the legal system; cultural resistance; and commonly held beliefs about women s role in land management and ownership. Bearing the above points in mind, we have devised our own conceptual and operational definitions of social protection. We utilise the terminology set out by Guhan (above), as this does not limit social protection to economic risk and vulnerability. Our conceptual definition is as follows: SOCIAL PROTECTION describes all public and private initiatives that provide income or consumption transfers to the poor, protect the vulnerable against livelihood risks, and enhance the social status and rights of the marginalised; with the overall objective of reducing the economic and social vulnerability of poor, vulnerable and marginalised groups. Our working definition elaborates on the mechanisms that deliver social protection: SOCIAL PROTECTION is the set of all initiatives, both formal and informal, that provide: social assistance to extremely poor individuals and households; social services to groups who need special care or would otherwise be denied access to basic services; social insurance to protect people against the risks and consequences of livelihood shocks; and social equity to protect people against social risks such as discrimination or abuse. The key objective of social protection is to reduce the vulnerability of the poor. The full range of social protection interventions can be categorised under protective, preventive, promotive and transformative measures. 9

16 Protective measures provide relief from deprivation. Protective measures are narrowly targeted safety net measures in the conventional sense they aim to provide relief from poverty and deprivation to the extent that promotional and preventive measures have failed to do so. Protective measures include social assistance for the chronically poor, especially those who are unable to work and earn their livelihood. This equates most closely to mainstream social welfare. Social assistance programmes typically include targeted resource transfers disability benefit, single-parent allowances, and social pensions for the elderly poor that are financed publicly out of the tax base, with donor support, and/or through NGO projects. Other protective measures can be classified as social services. These would be for the poor and groups needing special care, including orphanages and reception centres for abandoned children, feeding camps and provision of services for refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), and the abolition of health and education charges (as with Uganda s Universal Primary Education policy) in order to extend access to basic services to the very poor. Preventive measures seek to avert deprivation. Preventive measures deal directly with poverty alleviation. They include social insurance for economically vulnerable groups people who have fallen or might fall into poverty, and may need support to help them manage their livelihood shocks. This is similar to social safety nets. Social insurance programmes refer to formalised systems of pensions, health insurance, maternity benefit and unemployment benefits, often with tripartite financing between employers, employees and the state. They also include informal mechanisms, such as savings clubs and funeral societies. Strategies of risk diversification such as crop or income diversification are also considered as preventive measures. Promotive measures aim to enhance real incomes and capabilities, which is achieved through a range of livelihood-enhancing programmes targeted at households and individuals, such as microfinance and school feeding. The inclusion of promotive measures as a category here is open to the criticism that it takes social protection too far beyond its original conceptualisation. However, the intention is not to broaden the scope to include (potentially) all development initiatives, but to focus on promotive measures that have income stabilisation at least as one objective. A case in point is microcredit that fulfils income stabilising and consumption smoothing functions. Transformative measures seek to address concerns of social equity and exclusion, such as collective action for workers rights, or upholding human rights for minority ethnic groups. Transformative interventions include changes to the regulatory framework to protect socially vulnerable groups (e.g. people with disabilities, or victims of domestic violence) against discrimination and abuse, as well as sensitisation campaigns (such as the HIV/AIDS Anti-Stigma Campaign, which is discussed later in this paper) to transform public attitudes and behaviour and enhance social equity. 10

17 These categories may overlap, in that some measures could simultaneously promote incomes as well as prevent deprivation. Public works projects, for instance, aim both at transferring short-term food or cash and building useful long-term infrastructure. Figure 2.1 illustrates the relationship between these measures and presents a new conceptual framework for thinking about social protection. The solid black lines indicate an obvious and direct relationship. For instance, preventive policies, such as crop diversification to reduce future risk, may also have promotive aspects of social protection in the sense that a wider crop portfolio may lead to a competitive market advantage. Most preventive mechanisms could be argued to have promotive effects, in the sense that risk reduction enables people to take advantage of opportunities that they would otherwise have been unable to do. Figure 2.1 A conceptual framework for social protection Promotive Economic opportunities Minimum wage legislation Labour market regulations Transformative Transformative action Springboards Crop diversification Migration Property rights Microfinance Agricultural extension Micro-finance School feeding Preventive Insurance and diversification mechanisms (social security) Safety nets Protective Social assistance and coping strategies (social assistance formal and non-state) The thick dashed lines indicate a less obvious relationship. For instance, some preventive mechanisms can be transformative, and vice versa, but this relationship is not strong, nor inevitable. One example is microfinance schemes that simultaneously provide both social insurance and economic opportunities, and often have knock-on effects by empowering individuals within their households, and households within their communities. Similarly, some social protection instruments, such as minimum wage legislation, can 11

18 be both promotive and transformative (see Section 3.4). Paying workers a fair wage enhances their incomes and capabilities. At the same time, the very process of bargaining with employers to enforce the minimum wage through trade unions or public campaigns, and with explicit government support can be empowering and have positive transformative implications. The thin dotted line indicates a weak relationship between the protective and promotive aspects of social protection, to highlight the possibility that safety nets may in some cases enable people to take opportunities that otherwise they would not have taken, to enhance their economic opportunities. In the following section of this paper we draw on the example of school feeding schemes to illustrate this linkage. Finally, the very thick dashed line indicates that many protective measures can have the unfortunate effect of reinforcing established power hierarchies and patterns of exclusion. Furthermore, they can introduce social polarisation. For instance, some targeting mechanisms that are applied on public works or school feeding schemes can have stigmatising effects that create social tensions and exacerbate vulnerabilities. For this reason alone, progressive thinking on social protection must move beyond equating social protection exclusively with safety nets. Having now considered different categories of instruments, it is important to consider their intended beneficiaries. Our operational definition and conceptual framework, as presented above, cover three categories of people in need of social protection: 1) the chronically poor 2) the economically vulnerable 3) the socially marginalised. Often these categories overlap, because of the composite nature of vulnerability. For instance, socially marginalised groups e.g. ethnic minorities, people living with AIDS or disability are often economically vulnerable as well, being unable to work (in the case of the severely disabled or terminally ill) or being confined to low status livelihood activities that generate low and variable incomes (e.g. beggars). Another way of expressing this is that the weakest members of society are usually those who are both economically and socially vulnerable because these sources of vulnerability interact with and reinforce each other and they are often in greatest and most urgent need of social protection. The specific instruments, mechanisms and actors involved in social protection provisioning are by no means new. In its narrowest conceptualisation, social protection is equated with social security, where social security is often interpreted as meaning the specific public programmes of assistance, insurance and benefits that people can draw upon in order to maintain a minimum level of income. Our approach identifies four sets of interventions that are required to address adequately the social protection needs of the three vulnerable groups listed above. Table 2.1 summarises these distinctions between different categories of vulnerability and examples of vulnerable groups, and different categories of interventions, with examples of social protection programmes associated with each category. 12

20 3 Social protection in practice: protection, prevention, promotion and transformation This section presents practical examples of social protection measures under the four categories as set out in the framework above: protective, preventive, promotive, and transformative. In each case, an application will be made to the specific context of Uganda. It should also be emphasised that many interventions that can be considered as social protection measures have more than one objective, and are therefore discussed as both protective and promotive (as in the case of school feeding schemes), or as both promotive and transformative (as in the case of minimum wage legislation). 3.1 Protective social protection: non-formal social safety nets in Uganda Non-formal social security provision refers both to traditional or indigenous systems of extended family, kinship and community support, and to new institutional forms that have emerged in response to the inaccessibility of formal social security, rising needs for social security support, and the declining ability of informal networks to address these needs. In contemporary Africa, these self-help and mutual aid mechanisms include various forms of cooperatives, market associations, savings and credit clubs, and burial societies. The conventional view on the evolution of social protection in sub-saharan Africa follows a similar trajectory across most countries in the region. The narrative can be divided crudely into three phases: precolonial, colonial, and post-independence. The popular view is that pre-colonial Africans lived in mutual support networks of community, extended family and clan groups. Reciprocity and social cohesion [were] the two pillars of traditional social protection... acts of reciprocity, altruism, social cohesion and personal intimacies were sufficient to guarantee social protection in both good and bad times to all members of any ethnic nationality by ensuring equity and social justice (Ouma 1995: 6). Other writers have challenged this optimistic and benevolent view of the role and resilience of traditional institutions of social protection in Africa, arguing that there is a dark side to social capital e.g. it fails to recognise that the moral economy... often engenders relations of subservience and dependence (Davies 1996: 37), or that the burden of caring for relatives (especially the ill and infirm) falls mainly on women and over-estimates the capacity of these mechanisms to deal with shocks, especially at the community level. The erosion of these informal support systems is often attributed to the disruptive impacts of colonialism and commodification. Politically, the undermining of village- and clan-based power relationships inevitably undermined the authority of the kinship system in matters of socialisation and social control thus in turn undermining its ability to protect socially vulnerable groups such as the aged and the sick (Ouma 1995: 6). Economically, the commercialisation of labour and the increasing cash orientation of economic activity (to pay taxes or purchase goods and services) undermined individual acts of altruism or reciprocity (e.g. neighbours assisting each other with farming chores) or collective efforts (e.g. building or maintaining community infrastructure). 14

35 Poverty and Social Protection: The DFID Approach A. de Haan and S. Conlin The International Development Targets reflect the international development community s commitment to poverty alleviation. The

SOCIAL PROTECTION IN UGANDA Study to Inform the Development of a Framework for Social Protection in the Context of the Poverty Eradication Action Plan : VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT & REVIEW OF INITIATIVES

A review of social protection experiences in Africa Draft paper by G. Mutangadura Introduction Social protection has been defined by the UN in 2001 to be The set of public and private policies and programmes

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Combating Poverty and Inequality The role of social protection Sarah Cook Director, UNRISD 49th Session of Commission for Social Development New

4 Sustainable Use of Soil and Water: Links with Food Security Tom Slaymaker (ODI) February 2002 This material is the result of ODI research presented in preliminary form for discussion and critical comment.

UNDP-Spain MDG Achievement Fund Terms of Reference for Thematic Window on Gender Equality and Women s Empowerment This document provides policy guidance to UN Country Teams applying for funding under the

From: OECD Framework for Statistics on the Distribution of Household Income, Consumption and Wealth Access the complete publication at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264194830-en An explanation of social

Country Position Paper on Ageing and Poverty in Zambia 25 October 2003 Introduction Poverty is widespread in Zambia 40 years ago, at Independence, Zambia was a prosperous country Research evidence indicates

International Social Security Association Afric ISSA Meeting of Directors of Social Security Organizations in Asia and the Pacific Seoul, Republic of Korea, 9-11 November 2005 Current challenges in delivering

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Conclusions on recently emerging issues regarding HIV/AIDS 2795th GERAL AFFAIRS Council meeting Luxembourg, 23 April 2007 The Council of the European Union and the Representatives

Beyond food availability: exploring the concept of food security Elisabetta Aurino Young Lives, University of Oxford Presentation at Oxfam House, 1 October 2013 Much ado (and confusion) about FS Though

Recommendation concerning the transition from the informal to the formal economy, 2015 (No. 204) Preamble The General Conference of the International Labour Organization, Having been convened at Geneva

Sundsvall Statement on Supportive Environments for Health Third International Conference on Health Promotion, Sundsvall, Sweden, 9-15 June 1991 The Third International Conference on Health Promotion: Supportive

2011 HIGH LEVEL MEETING ON YOUTH General Assembly United Nations New York 25-26 July 2011 Thematic panel 2: Challenges to youth development and opportunities for poverty eradication, employment and sustainable

Types of Good Practices Focusing on Family Poverty Reduction and Social Exclusion Zitha Mokomane Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa Social science that makes a difference Date: 16 May 2012

Social Protection in the post-2015 Development Agenda armando barrientos and david hulme, brooks world poverty institute, school of environment and development, university of manchester, uk text: Armando

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.8.2012 COM(2012) 446 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE

100 Questions: identifying research priorities for poverty prevention and reduction These 100 research questions would, if answered, help to reduce or prevent poverty. The list includes questions across

SERIES: SOCIAL SECURITY EXTENSION INITATIVES IN SOUTH EAST ASIA INDONESIA: PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THE POOR ILO Subregional Office for South East Asia Decent Work for All Asian Decent Work Decade

Issues paper: The EU role in global health Comments from the Institute for Global Health, 9 December 2009 IGH is submitting answers to 14 of the questions posed in the consultation document. Question 3:

UNICEF/NYHQ2006-0450/Pirozzi Appeal to the Member States of the United Nations Early Childhood Development: The Foundation of Sustainable Human Development for 2015 and Beyond We, the undersigned, submit

NOTES O N FORMALIZATION Evolution of informal employment in the Dominican Republic According to official estimates, between 2005 and 2010, informal employment fell from 58,6% to 47,9% as a proportion of

Food Security: A Priority for the Inter American Social Protection Network The General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (OAS/GS), the FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean,

Promoting Social and Economic Justice Session 1.2: What is social protection and what can it do? Social protection policy and programmes: a review of experiences, lessons and best practices 18-20 November

Limerick Women s Network How many women do you represent? We have 10 affiliated member groups each with approximately 10 members What does your group do? Activities/services We work on issues which affect

CARE International Climate Change Brief Adaptation and Food Security Food insecurity is a growing concern throughout the developing world, particularly for poor women and children. Estimates suggest that

Draft WGIG Issue paper on Affordable and Universal Access This paper is a 'draft working paper' reflecting the preliminary findings of the drafting team. It has been subject to review by all WGIG members,

Section 2 Realization of social security system that allows all the people to live safely *1 1 The role of social security (1) Basic concept of social security Daily lives of the people are basically managed

March 2006 E CONFERENCE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AGRARIAN REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Porto Alegre, 7-10 March 2006 FINAL DECLARATION 1. We, the Member States, gathered at the International Conference

ILC98-Partial-2009-07-0115-1-En.doc RECOVERING FROM THE CRISIS: A GLOBAL JOBS PACT The General Conference of the International Labour Organization, Having heard the Heads of State, Vice-Presidents, Prime

The World We Want A North-East Asian Youth Vision This Declaration was handed to His Excellency Kim Sung-hwan, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea, in Seoul on 9 th of January

NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT DRAFT MINIMUM NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY BASED TREATMENT Pretoria South Africa Contact Details : National Department of Social Development Private Bag X901,

Funding priorities for 2012 Annual Work Plan European Union Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity PROGRESS Committee for the implementation of Progress 2007-13 Table of Contents Introduction...

3 2. Poverty, livelihoods and poverty reduction This chapter describes the various dimensions of poverty so as to better understand how forestry can help to reduce it through both the creation of wealth

UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES European Commission Working Document Consultation on the Future EU 2020 Strategy Contribution from the United Nations Team in Belgium 1 The United Nations has a rich and varied

DCA Programme Policy: Gender Equality DCA Focus Equal rights for women and men Women s participation in decision making at all levels Men more active in working towards gender equality Gender mainstreaming

JANUARY 1999 Key questions and concepts In its April 1998 Green Paper on welfare reform, the new Government argues that its policy reforms will follow a third way : The welfare state now faces a choice

EPr1 Employment creation in innovative public work programs: Phase III 129 130 As of the end of October 2014, Egypt was host to some 140,000 registered Syrian refugees. While the influx of refugees has

THE PENSION SYSTEM IN ROMANIA 1. THE PENSION SYSTEM MAIN FEATURES The pension system in Romania has undergone numerous reforms over the recent years, aimed at improving the sustainability of the system

China's Pension Reform China's Social Security Pension System and its Reform Kaiji Chen University of Oslo March 27, 2007 1 China's Pension Reform Why should we care about China's social security system

Document WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/7 -E 18 November 2005 Original: English TUNIS COMMITMENT 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, have gathered in Tunis from 16-18 November 2005 for this second

Social Protection in West Africa The Status Quo, Financing challenges and Implications for Research Fleur Wouterse, Research Fellow IFPRI West and Central Africa Office Social protection initiatives in

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE FOOD SYSTEMS FOR BETTER NUTRITION 2013 Malnutrition in all its forms undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, and overweight and obesity imposes unacceptably high economic

Do not publish or DiStribute before 00:01 Gmt on tuesday 27 may 2014 Summary Developing with Jobs World of Work Report 2014 Developing with jobs Executive Summary INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION RESEARCH

OECD SOCIAL COHESION POLICY REVIEWS CONCEPT NOTE Social Cohesion Policy Reviews are a new OECD tool to: measure the state of social cohesion in a society and monitor progress over time; assess policies

Conceptualizing, Operationalizing and Measuring Women s Empowerment Jemimah Njuki CARE USA Understanding Empowerment Empowerment Defined Empowerment: The process by which those who have been denied the

KEY GUIDE Financial protection for you and your family Protecting what matters most Life and health insurance protection underpins most good financial planning. These types of insurance can ensure that

Quality in and Equality of Access to Healthcare Services Executive Summary European Commission Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities Manuscript completed in March 2008

FROM SDG 5 TO HABITAT III THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN PROMOTING GENDER EQUALITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY WOMEN LEADERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT UCLG Standing Committee on Gender Equality Paris, 6 December 2015

RAGUSA DECLARATION on Youth, Migration and Development A Euro-Arab youth contribution to intercultural dialogue and global solidarity for the International Year of Youth Euro-Arab Youth Conference Tunis

International Monetary and Financial Committee Thirty-Fourth Meeting October 8, 2016 IMFC Statement by Guy Ryder Director-General International Labour Organization Inclusive growth and development founded

OPINION ON GENDER DIMENSION IN THE NEXT PROGRAMMING PERIOD OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS 2007-2013 Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities Between Women and Men July 2006 1 Opinion 1 on GENDER DIMENSION IN

Joint conclusions of the Spanish Presidency EU Youth Conference youth employment and social inclusion, Jerez, Spain 13-15 April 2010 Youth Employment is the common theme of the three EU Youth Conferences

Issue paper for Session 4 Social security policies for social cohesion and economic development Towards a global social floor? The need for a global strategy for social security The era of globalization

Social Protection Policies in Ghana: Prospects and challenges ALBERT AHENKAN (PHD) UNIVERSITY OF GHANA BUSINESS SCHOOL, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT AAHENKAN@UG.EDU.GH

UNDER EMBARGO until June 3 at 00:01 GMT World Social Protection Report 2014/15 Executive summary Social protection policies play a critical role in realizing the human right to social security for all,

Suggestions for amending the Draft General Comment on the Right to just and favourable conditions of work (article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) (E/C.12/54/R.2)

SOUTH AFRICA S INPUT INTO THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE OPEN WORKING GROUP ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOMENT GOALS, 18 JUNE 2013 NEW YORK Health and development. South African Policy Framework. South Africa s approach

Problem Tree Analysis What is it? The Problem Tree method is a planning method based on needs, however it is not a mechanical translation of problems into objectives. While going through the process, taking

ECOLOGICAL A MEANS OF CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINING LIVELIHOODS RESTORATION The Society for Ecological Restoration International (SER) is a non-profit organization infused with the energy of involved

Cash For Work (CFW). 1. Why opt for a CFW intervention? This section aims to establish the logical and practical arguments for and against Cash for Work (CFW) as a Cash Transfer Programming (CTP) modality.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, POVERTY AND THE ENVIRONMENT: A CHALLENGE TO THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY 1. BACKGROUND The World Summit on Sustainable Development is an important occasion for the world community to assess

The reform of the Hungarian pension system (A reformed reform) Focus The objective of the comprehensive pension reform currently under way in Hungary is to return to the two-pillar pension system, based

G20 Labour and Employment Ministers Declaration Moscow, 18-19 July 2013 1. We, the Ministers of Labour and Employment from G20 countries met in Moscow on July 18-19, 2013 to discuss the global labour market

SOCIAL SECURITY IN VIETNAM: CHALLENGES AND OPTIONS BUI XUAN DU, MSc Institute of Labour Science and Social Affairs (ILSSA) Ministry of Labour, Invalids, and Social Affairs (MOLISA), Vietnam Tokyo, March

Rural and Agricultural Finance Day 1: Block 1 What and Why of Rural Finance? Self Introduction 7 Questions 1. Name, institution, and current job title. 2. What activity are you working on now that is related

Reducing vulnerability through economic empowerment: a new approach to social protection in Palestine Michael Sansour Nedal Zahran International Conference: Social Protection for Social Justice Institute